I am a biker that is angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60. It's bad for gas mileage (and thus hurts me indirectly through climate change and trade deficits), it's bad for safety (and thus hurts me indirectly through costs of government service personnel and road repairs), and it promotes an attitude of automobile entitlement that hinders my safe cycling.
Re:The Economics of Bike Lanes
by randallsquared on Monday October 24, 2011 @03:14PM
(#3151074)
I am a biker that is angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60.
I'm not sure what your anger has to do with doing 65 in a 60 -- it seems like you might be angry at drivers, full stop. :)
My point is simply that people haul out the "cyclists don't stop at stop signs" argument, in a selective way, without applying it to all traffic rules that are targeted at safety.
You're right, the "65 in a 60" was a rhetorical device. I used it, of course, because it's a law that so many people break.
But seriously, rhetorical devices aside: speeding in residential districts is a real problem for pedestrian (and driver, and cyclist) safety. And I think that's pretty clear.
Why don't we talk about how consistently cyclists obey posted speed limits? ;-)
Is there a contingent of bikers somewhere angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60? If not, what does it have to do with anything? The violations that people get upset about are those that actively endanger or inconvenience them or people like them.